pop, question ...

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The 'fundamentalists' don't deny that any of the Bible is God's Word.
You do .... and LARGE portions of it.

So?

Stop trying to act like you're doing the very same thing that they do.

Like I said, cherry-picking is cherry-picking.

Rationalize it all you want, but your choice to completely disregard large portions of Mosaic Law based on St. Paul and your own 20th/21st century education and culture is really no different from my choosing to disregard portions of the OT (and Paul) based on my 20th/21st century education and culture. Spin it any way you want, but you're still shopping for what parts of "God's eternal and inerrant" Word to obey. The Bible is so frewaking huge and full of self-contradictions that church leaders and religious folk of all stripes have done all kinds of theological and logical contortions and gymnastics to defend their whackass denominational contentions.

It reminds me of the old George Carlin bit (about the Roman Church in the late 50's) pronouncing "THIS LAW IS ETERNAL...except for THIS WEEK!!"

Nobody's buying it.

Nobody? Obviously a whole bunch of people buy into it, since Biblical literalism is outside the mainstream of Christianity.

You're in the same boat as mormons, Mike, except that they've added to the Word, and you've subtracted from it.

I could argue that you and the Mormons are in the same boat in that you all cling deperately to claims that are completely disputed by scientific and historical facts. There's literally NO difference between their idiotic claims that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel, that a resurrected Jesus appeared to the Injuns, etc. and the just plain silly claims that a talking snake duped two nekkid folks in an actual garden into eating magic fruit. None.

'Fundamentalists' haven't subtracted ANYTHING.

Other than anything remotely resembling reason.

Churchy folk fought heliocentrism because it allegedly contradicted Scripture. Churchy folk fought the classification of whales as fish (and the whole science of classification) because THAT allegedly contradicted Scripture. Now, the descendants of those numbnuts are trying to fight the same dopey battle with regards to evolution. All because of this nutty belief that "if any one part of the Bible is shown to be wrong...THE WHOLE DANGED THANG IS CALLED INTO QUESTION!!!" The fact that there are indisputable scientific and historical errors in the Bible doesn't in any way, shape, or form, diminish its authority in matters of faith, moral, and our relationship with God.

Oh, and a "shoutout" to Dio:

You wanted a non-Urantia site that agrees with Paul corrupting and contradicting Christ's message?

Here ya go, from a skeptic site:

http://de-conversion.com/2007/07/22/dec ... aint-paul/

and here's a related site:

http://itsmypulp.wordpress.com/2007/07/ ... -of-jesus/

Apparently Bart Ehrman isn't a big fan of Paul, from what I've scanned.

[Diogenes]

Rationalize it all you want, but your choice to completely disregard large portions of Mosaic Law based on St. Paul and your own 20th/21st century education and culture is really no different from my choosing to disregard portions of the OT (and Paul) based on my 20th/21st century education and culture.

Nobody is 'disregarding' Mosaic law. And certainly not based on modernist arrogance. The fact is that according to scripture, Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ. It was never intended for non-Jews to begin with.

Nobody? Obviously a whole bunch of people buy into it, since Biblical literalism is outside the mainstream of Christianity.

No. It isn't.

You wanted a non-Urantia site that agrees with Paul corrupting and contradicting Christ's message?

Here ya go, from a skeptic site:

http://de-conversion.com/2007/07/22/dec ... aint-paul/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and here's a related site:

http://itsmypulp.wordpress.com/2007/07/ ... -of-jesus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently Bart Ehrman isn't a big fan of Paul, from what I've scanned.

Nice sites. The authours' assertations are pretty well debunked without even leaving the page.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The fact is that according to scripture, Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ. It was never intended for non-Jews to begin with.

I'm still awaiting a straight answer on what "Mosaic law [being] fulfilled in Christ" specifically means. There doesn't appear to be a clear, definite definition that has any consensus even on this board. Does it mean that they are now expired, and like some out-of-date civil laws from the days of yore, no longer have any legal (or, in this case - spiritual) effect?

As for the Mosaic law never being intended for non-Jews, are you saying that all of the OT rules, including the Ten Commandments, were not meant for all of mankind to follow? Just askin'.

Nobody? Obviously a whole bunch of people buy into it, since Biblical literalism is outside the mainstream of Christianity.

No. It isn't.

Umm...yes it is. Roman Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination, and they certainly do not adhere to the doctrine of Biblical literalism. That also goes for the members of the Anglican communion, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians...

..need I go on?

Nice sites. The authours' assertations are pretty well debunked without even leaving the page.

Nice rebuttal. Or, more accurately, complete lack thereof. Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so. Ehrman is, from what I've been able to find out, pretty well respected as a historian of Christianity and the Bible and has several respected books to his credit. Somehow, your off-the-cuff claim, based on your "internet pundit" credentials, doesn't seem to rise to his level of credibility.

[poptart]

I'm still awaiting a straight answer on what "Mosaic law [being] fulfilled in Christ" specifically means

LOL

I've answered it a few times in this thread.

You don't like the answer.


Oh well .....

[BSmack]

I'm still awaiting a straight answer on what "Mosaic law [being] fulfilled in Christ" specifically means

LOL

I've answered it a few times in this thread.

Link?

[poptart]

Read Colossians 2:13-23, which I posted.

Read my posts ... which I posted. lol

When Jesus spoke of none of 'the law' ... or the prophets ... being destroyed, but fulfilled through Him (Matthew 5:17,18), He was speaking of the entirety of Old Testament writings.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Well, if the OT writings are now cancelled, I guess that holy rollers should stop trying to cite the Ten Commandments as big-time moral laws. I mean, if Paul said that Jesus made them null and void and stuff, what's the point of trying to slap 'em up in courthouses or other public buildings? Nostalgia?

[poptart]

Mike, you gave the stunning take earlier in this thread that, based on some understanding you have within yourself, you believe that there is salvation apart from Jesus Christ.

This flies directly in the face of the clear Words of Jesus Christ -- John 14:6.
It flies directly in the face of Acts 4:12.
It flies directly in the face of the overall fundamental message of the Bible.

In your militant efforts to debunk the 'reality' of Genesis, I am certain that the MESSAGE of Genesis 1-3 eludes you.

Man has become separated from God at the spiritual level.
He is in a curse, and he will inevitably be driven into failure ... and eternally so.

Christ, ONLY Christ, brings a man out of this.

You've not come to the realization of what the Bible, fundamentally, is saying, and the realization of WHO Christ is, and why He had to come.

So your entire line of questioning regarding 'the law' ... etc ... is, for lack of a better term, ... goofy.


Finally, when you start lecturing about someone being outside mainstream Christianity, and you yourself deny the necessity of Jesus Christ .... well .... words can't describe ... lol

[Mike the Lab Rat]

So your entire line of questioning regarding 'the law' ... etc ... is, for lack of a better term, ... goofy.


Finally, when you start lecturing about someone being outside mainstream Christianity, and you yourself deny the necessity of Jesus Christ .... well .... words can't describe ... lol

Arguing that an actual talking snake conning two specific humans into eating magic fruit is the source of our condemnation, that humans (and other species) were free of disease and death before this alleged fruit-transgression, and that your allegedly all-wise, all-loving, all-good deity would see fit to punish all humanity for untold generations for their alleged ancestors' fruit-eating (despite Himself specifically telling humans that we, OTOH must forgive 70 times 7 times..) is hardly a auspicious way to claim credibility.

Biblical literalism is outside of mainstream Christianity. To support my statement, I listed the mainstream Christian denominations that don't buy the whole "Bible as 100%literally, scientifically, historically accurate" line of absolute horseshit. I, OTOH, never claimed that my dismissal of St. Paul as a deluded conman was a mainstream Christian view.

[BSmack]

Read Colossians 2:13-23, which I posted.

Read my posts ... which I posted. lol

When Jesus spoke of none of 'the law' ... or the prophets ... being destroyed, but fulfilled through Him (Matthew 5:17,18), He was speaking of the entirety of Old Testament writings.

So, why do Christians keep the 10 Commandments, prohibitions on extramarital sex and prohibitions on homosexuality but not other parts of the Old testament law? Why do we pick and choose between the laws we keep from the OT?

[poptart]

Bri, it's the same question you asked me at the top of this page.
I replied and then asked you to name three 'laws' and I would tell you if I followed them, and why I did, or did not, follow them.

At any rate, here is my reply this time ....

A Christian doesn't have to follow any of the laws.
What one must do is believe and receive Jesus Christ.
When that happens, one is free from the bondage of satan.

God gave the law, as I said before, to Israel so that they could navigate in their world on a course toward what would ultimately bring for the Messiah.
He gave the law at that time to fulfill that end.

God did not call current believers for them to follow the law.

So why did He call the believers in Christ?
The very last thing Christ Jesus told believers was that in Him was ALL authority, and that they should be filled with the Holy Spirit and go to all the world to tell of Him and make new disciples.

The believer is called for this, not so that they can follow the law.

You can look again at what I said about the transfiguration incident if you care to.
Middle of page two in this thread I put up two posts speaking of it.

The Ten Commandments are all good.
If a believer is being led by the Holy Spirit, he will follow 'em all.

Regarding the other two 'items' that you mentioned, extramarital sex and homosexuality, it is clear from the whole of Scripture that these are not desirable.

Can a person do these things and still be considered a 'Christian'?
Of course.

The same as a person might be, for example, a problem drinker, and still be a sincere Christian.
We're all patients.



Mike, are you sure it was a snake speaking to Eve?
Genesis 3 tells us that it was the serpent.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

The serpent, satan, deceived Adam & Eve.

Their 'eyes were opened up' and they knew they were naked.
They tried to hide from God.
It's interesting.

This is all before God asked them what was up.

What happened was that they became spiritually aligned w/satan.
They died a spiritual death.
The 'curse' that they received was a consequence of leaving God's Word.

This is where mankind is.

Of course God promised RIGHT AWAY that He would provide a solution.
Genesis 3:15.

RACK God!


The only reason I have ever cared to comment on Ten Commandments in public buildings, etc., is that from a Constitutional POV it most certainly should be allowed.

To think otherwise means you either have an agenda, or you are clueless dipshit.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Mike, are you sure it was a snake speaking to Eve?
Genesis 3 tells us that it was the serpent.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

The serpent, satan, deceived Adam & Eve.

Nice try, but no frigging dice.

In Genesis 3:14. God specifically calls out the serpent and tells it that its punishment is to "crawl on its belly" and "eat dust." God also talks about the critter striking at man's heel, while we strike at its head. The verses surrounding that passage also make a point of referring to the serpent in the context of other beasts.

It's bleeding obvious that the little fairy tale is trying to claim that AN ACTUAL SNAKE was the villian in the piece, and that the use of the term "serpent" is specific.

It's incredibly inconsistant (but funnier than hell) that "Mr. Biblical Literalist" is right now trying to dig his way out of the goofy hole by now claiming that the snake is allegorical/metaphorical and not literal.

You can't have it both ways. The Bible says serpent, not Satan. It refers to the serpent as a beast that crawls on its belly, not as a fallen angel.

The only reason I have ever cared to comment on Ten Commandments in public buildings, etc., is that from a Constitutional POV it most certainly should be allowed.

To think otherwise means you either have an agenda, or you are clueless dipshit.

Sorry, but that pesky little First Commandment, in which the God of Abraham and Isaac and Moses asserts that He is the ONLY real God is kind of in complete disagreement with the concept of religious neutrality. Bible thumpers keep trying to sneak that one past the judges, but anyone with a triple-digit IQ and a shred of integrity and honesty can see past that thinly-disguied ruse.

I agree with mvscal's take that posting the Ten Commandents ONLY along with and within the context of, other historical legal documents is appropriate. Placing the Ten Commandments by themselves, without other historical and cultural bases for the development of Western law, is nothing more than Christian "thumperism" To quote you, "[t]o think otherwise means you either have an agenda, or you are clueless dipshit."

[poptart]

The Bible says serpent, not Satan. It refers to the serpent as a beast that crawls on its belly, not as a fallen angel.

Prior to the incident in the garden, all we are told of the serpent is that it is more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord has made.
We are not told anything about the form of the being, other than it 'spoke' to Eve.

Only after Eve has been deceived does God pronounce that the serpent is cursed and that it shall crawl on it's belly and eat dust.

It's logical to assume that the serpent had some 'other' form or nature before the incident, seeing as how the natures (or 'forms') of Adam and Eve were both changed after the incident, by virtue of the curse that God said had come upon them.


You don't believe that Adam and Eve were deceived by satan?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

It's logical to assume that the serpent had some 'other' form or nature before the incident, seeing as how the natures (or 'forms') of Adam and Eve were both changed after the incident, by virtue of the curse that God said had come upon them.

Using the word "logic" in the attempt to rationalize belief in the whole Garden of Eden fairy tale is laughable.

You don't believe that Adam and Eve were deceived by satan?

I don't believe that the incident occured. Period.

No actual dude named Adam, no actual woman named Eve, no actual Garden of Eden, no disease-and-death-free period of existence prior to the "Fall," no magical tree, no talking beastie, etc. It's a frigging fairy tale on par with Aesop's tales, Greek myths, and Kipling's "Just So Stories."

[poptart]

You continually try to put me in a box by labeling me as a Biblical Literalist, and that is not accurate.

I'm a Bible believer.
I read it and believe what it says.

You say (among MANY other things) that there was no garden, no Adam and Eve, no satan ....

And suppose you'd like to cross-reference Scripture which shows a denial of these things?
Oh ... there IS no Scripture denying such things.
There IS, however, other Scripture supporting the garden, Adam and Eve and satan.

Again, you, in your incredible wisdom, have just decided that some of THE most critically important parts of Scripture are untrue.

Ponderous.


In Luke 4, Jesus is speaking in a synagogue.
Luke 4:18-21 records ....

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me (Jesus, who is speaking), because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.


Captive to what?
Deliverance from what?


Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


The serpent and his followers (demons) have covered the earth in their darkness.
It began in Genesis 3 (which you deny), and man is absolutely captive to this.
Trapped by it.

This captivity to satan inevitably sends man into failure ... and eternally.

The earth is covered in this evil darkness of satan.

You would notice that Jesus CONTINUALLY, in His ministry, cast out demons.
Over and over and over ....
And he instructed disciples to do the very same thing ... cast out demons.

Why would He do this?
Just for fun?

Of course it's because this is the darkness that covers the world and sends man to his failure.
Absolutely so.

All authority is in the name of Jesus Christ.
Darkness flees and God's Kingdom is established at the sound of that name, and that name only.

The darkness came upon the first people -- as told in Genesis 3 -- and it's passed to all mankind.
And God himself has declared (Genesis 8 ) that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.

Satan and his demons were cast to earth, where satan has set up shop and works to deceive the whole world (Rev. 12:9).

Satan has captured people.

1 John 3:8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

You say (among MANY other things) that there was no garden, no Adam and Eve, no satan ....

And suppose you'd like to cross-reference Scripture which shows a denial of these things?
Oh ... there IS no Scripture denying such things.
There IS, however, other Scripture supporting the garden, Adam and Eve and satan.

That is like saying that the One Ring in the "Lord of the Rings" MUST be real...because Frodo and Gandalf and other individuals in the book "cross-reference" it.

Your argument is claptrap.

A bunch of scientifically-illiterate primitives referencing mythological events as actually occurring is in no way, shape, or form "proof" that it actually occurred. It just shows how credulous and scientifically unsophisticated they all were. Hell, those are the same freaks who classified bats as birds...despite the fact that even a clueless fucktard could figure out that bats have hair, bear live young (as opposed to laying eggs), have no beaks, etc. Citing scientific dimwits in the Bible to "authenticate" scientifically-untenable claims is hardly a winning argument.

[poptart]

Old Testament chronologies place Adam at the beginning of the list.
New Testament chronologies place Adam at the beginning of Jesus' ancestors.
Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve as nothing other than real folks.

Of course this doesn't 'prove' that they were real people.
It just proves that a person who believes the Bible finds no reaon within within the book to dismiss them.

The bat thing is dumb as can be.
It was simply written from the perspective of what people were seeing.
The people saw that it flew ... as the birds do, so Moses relayed that it, like the others flying creatures listed in Leviticus, was not to be eaten.

Give your scientific brain a long rest and mix in some common sense.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The bat thing is dumb as can be.

I agree. It should be obvious to any but those suffering from brain injury or extra chromosomes that bats are not birds. I have a hard time believing that at no point prior to the "brilliant" Biblical misclassification, that no ancient Jews ever got a good look at a bat and noticed the lack of a beak or feathers. I'm guessing that any ancient Jews looking for bat eggs was sorely disappointed.

It was simply written from the perspective of what people were seeing.
The people saw that it flew ... as the birds do, so Moses relayed that it, like the others flying creatures listed in Leviticus, was not to be eaten.

Ohhhhh...so you're saying that sometimes the Bible is scientifically inaccurate because the information was relayed to the primitive folks of the time using terms and concepts they could more easily grasp, instead of scientifically accurate explanations...

Gee whiz, golly - I wish I had stated something like that years ago.

Oh wait, that's right - I did. Repeatedly.

Give your scientific brain a long rest and mix in some common sense.

"Common sense?" You mean like realizing that there most certainly was disease and death before humans ever set foot on the planet? You mean like realizing that the Garden of Eden story is nothing more than a primitive attempt (lifted from Babylonian myth, btw...) to explain suffering and death? You mean like realizing that the authors of Genesis most definitely were describing the critter tempting A & E as an actual SNAKE?

I love common sense. It's what helped me realize that taking the Old Testament stories literally was just plain silly.

[poptart]

If it ended there for you, it might be ... ok.
However, in your fervor to debunk the Bible, critical and fundamental truths about the human existence, which are found ONLY in the Bible, escape you.

It would seem that you read the Bible in a manner designed to see what parts you can declare NOT to be true, rather than understanding the straight forward truths which it DOES put forth.

Simply, not understanding Genesis 3, and particulary the role of satan, means that you have pretty much missed all of it.

Denial of satan, denial of the necessity of Christ, claiming there is salvation outside of Christ, denial of much of the New Testament ....

These are the doctrines of someone who simply doesn't get it.

[RadioFan]

The 'fundamentalists' don't deny that any of the Bible is God's Word.

Good point.

An amazing number of them just tend to concentrate on certain parts, while igoring others, in their everyday lives, just like mainstream christians, myself included.

Simply shocking, with these things called "denominations" and preachers. But it's not like church leaders have any influence or anything.

[RadioFan]

That goes along with my initial question, btw, pop.

With different Bibles, obviously, there are different interpretations. (as if there weren't enough with the King James version)

Carry on ...

[poptart]

Of course you're right, RF.

You know, you could ask 10 people to read The Cat in the Hat and you might get 10 varying interpretations of different parts of the book.

So with a Book like the Bible (actually 66 Books, written by some 40 different authors, over a period of maybe 1,500 years) it stands to reason (or human nature) that we have a very wide variety of interpretations about so many different parts of the Book.

And also, one can read a given passage from the Bible at different times and glean something new and fresh from it with each reading.


But the real thing is this, IMO .....

The basic and most critically important message of the Bible is the very message the evil one does not want people to latch on to.
He does everything possible to this end, and causing division among believers over silly matters, which are not fundamental to the core Bible message, is one strategy.

Satan took man away from God (and took away the very life of man) and he continues to confuse man and make it so that man doesn't even understand God's Word very well.


Revelation 12:9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

- Satan and his followers (demons) were cast out to this earth and they deceive the whole world


Genesis 2:17: (God told man) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

- Man left God's Word and broke the Covenant he had with God.
Man died spiritually that day, and he is continually confused, tricked and deceived by satan.
That confusion and deception that man has includes a poor handling and understanding of God's Word.

Does it matter, for just one of endless examples, if the account of Jonah being in the belly of a whale was literally true or not?

The main purpose of the Bible is to show man the way to salvation.
It's an INCREDIBLY simple Book if you break it down to it's most fundamental elements.

In fact, and not coincidentally, it can all be summed up in the first 3 verses of the entire Book.

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1. God is the Creator
2. Satan (darkness) has set up shop
3. God sent Christ (Light) to bring man out of darkness -- if he'll just accept it

[RadioFan]

It's an INCREDIBLY simple Book if you break it down to it's most fundamental elements.

One book, maybe, with two parts -- the second being Jesus, obviously.

From the standpoint of people picking and choosing, especially in the "name" of Jesus, from the old testament ... well, that's where it becomes not very simple, at ALL.

In fact, much of the complete horseshit, in the guise of "Christian fundamentalism," I disagree with, BECAUSE of the picking and choosing of the OLD testament to "justify" a course of action or nonaction.

But I see ya workin, bro. And like I said, hey, if it works for some, so much the better.

Just don't try to cram additional laws based on the Old Testament down my throat via legislation and we're cool.

[PSUFAN]

How about this, pop:

The Pentateuch is a cultural work - something of a living guidebook for your everyday 1,000 BC Jew. There are gems of wisdom there that can handily be applied to life today here and now, but there is plenty of stuff that has no bearing on life in 2008.

Heck, look at it this way...the orthodox Jews that stone their neighbor ladies in Israeli suburban cul de smacks are trying to live according to that document as best they can.

They probably don't want to fuck their women through sheet-holes. They've probably rather hit the soccer moms with money shots than rocks - some of them are pretty sexy, if you can overlook the Long Island accents. Their devotion to the Pentateuch prevents this...oh well. That document DEMANDS that they live like that...anything less, and they are not true to that document.

The NT is a reform effort - an attempt to bring all of that mess into focus. It is an interesting cultural development that Christians want to keep the two works together and pretend that they are seamless...interesting, but probably futile. Those who claim that the OT and the NT don't exist in pretty much ceaseless contradiction probably haven't read them, or understood them.

[SunCoastSooner]

Mike, you gave the stunning take earlier in this thread that, based on some understanding you have within yourself, you believe that there is salvation apart from Jesus Christ.

This flies directly in the face of the clear Words of Jesus Christ -- John 14:6.
It flies directly in the face of Acts 4:12.
It flies directly in the face of the overall fundamental message of the Bible.

No that's the message of the new testament not the entire bible.

In your militant efforts to debunk the 'reality' of Genesis, I am certain that the MESSAGE of Genesis 1-3 eludes you.

Man has become separated from God at the spiritual level.
He is in a curse, and he will inevitably be driven into failure ... and eternally so.

Christ, ONLY Christ, brings a man out of this.

You've not come to the realization of what the Bible, fundamentally, is saying, and the realization of WHO Christ is, and why He had to come.

So your entire line of questioning regarding 'the law' ... etc ... is, for lack of a better term, ... goofy.


Finally, when you start lecturing about someone being outside mainstream Christianity, and you yourself deny the necessity of Jesus Christ .... well .... words can't describe ... lol

Jesus did not fulfill jewish prophecy, period, end of story. Even Lefty has tried to explain this in the forum.

[SunCoastSooner]

The NT is a reform effort - an attempt to bring all of that mess into focus. It is an interesting cultural development that Christians want to keep the two works together and pretend that they are seamless...interesting, but probably futile. Those who claim that the OT and the NT don't exist in pretty much ceaseless contradiction probably haven't read them, or understood them.

RACK!!!

[poptart]

How about this, pop:

The Pentateuch is a cultural work - something of a living guidebook for your everyday 1,000 BC Jew. There are gems of wisdom there that can handily be applied to life today here and now, but there is plenty of stuff that has no bearing on life in 2008.

This is somewhat true.

Portions of the Pentateuch were directives given to the Jewish people for the express purpose of navigating them successfully toward what would ultimately bring forth the Messiah, who is the Savior for the entire world ... if they believe and receive Him.

In that sense, yes, portions of the Pentateuch were a guidebook for your everyday 1,000 BC Jew.

But as I so often want to express, there is nothing more fundamentally important than the early chapters of Genesis, and Genesis 3 in particular.

The entire Bible has one overriding purpose, and that is for the salvation of man.

[PSUFAN]

I will also argue with that last line.

The OT is less concerned with the salvation of man than it is with the salvation of the Jewish People. That's one of the things that define it as a cultural document. It was written by Jews for Jews. To them, survival was a holy struggle. From their perspective, it was only right that they should survive, at the expense of the Midianites and any other group, if necessary.

That's how you fight hard and win and take your neighbor's stuff - you frame it as a holy struggle.

The NT indeed does have salvation of all as a fundamental precept, that I agree with.

[poptart]

Because curse has come upon ALL mankind (Genesis 3:1-20), God provided the way out of curse for ALL mankind.

God's plan of salvation involved the Messiah coming through the Jews -- Abraham's family line -- and for this primary reason, God dealt with the Jews all throughout the Old Testament. Simply to pave the way for the coming Christ.
God rescued and protected the Jews (despite their frequent rejection of Him) throughout the Old Testament for the sake of the coming redeemer of mankind, the Christ.

Genesis 12:1-3
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The Jew, as anyone else, can come back into God's Covenant (and out of curse) by receiving the promised Christ, who destroyed the work of the devil.

[battery chucka' one]

I will also argue with that last line.

The OT is less concerned with the salvation of man than it is with the salvation of the Jewish People. That's one of the things that define it as a cultural document. It was written by Jews for Jews. To them, survival was a holy struggle. From their perspective, it was only right that they should survive, at the expense of the Midianites and any other group, if necessary.

That's how you fight hard and win and take your neighbor's stuff - you frame it as a holy struggle.

The NT indeed does have salvation of all as a fundamental precept, that I agree with.

Not unlike MLB, you are partly right and mostly wrong.

The OT was, as you said, a cultural document, but it is so much more. Yes, it laid down the laws of the descendants of Abraham (Jews were just members of one of the tribes [Judah]). It also pointed forward to the sacrifice that would atone for all sins of mankind (Jesus). Yom Kippur (day of atonement) during the time of the temple was meant to look forward to this. Also, it was a groundwork so the people, if they were looking properly, could see the Messiah when He came and know it was Him. God knew man's nature and that's why He used John the Baptist to point out the Messiah to the Jews (the other tribes were gone at that time [see Assyria]). The Jews were looking, for the most part, for a military leader. Don't forget what Samuel said when he visited the house of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:7) with regards to the anointed son (David).

Man thought the Messiah was going to be one thing. God had much larger plans. Those plans are spelled out quite plainly throughout the OT. Those plans ended up being much bigger than any human could fathom (Christ). If we view it from a God-centered perspective, it's quite obvious and rather simple. If we view it from man's, it gets cloudy and muddled.

I don't know what happened with people in the OT. There was not yet a sacrifice for all (Christ), so their sins were not yet atoned for. Was there a holding place where they went and waited? I don't know. I've heard some pastors say that there was while others said that they were saved by looking forward to the coming Messiah. Again, I don't have any problems saying that I don't know for certain. I do know that many are in the faith Hall of Fame (Hebrews 11). I don't think they would be mentioned in there if they were damned, regardless of their Faith.

[RadioFan]

Not unlike MLB, you are partly right and mostly wrong.

Interesting, to say the least, considering your sig, sport.

[SunCoastSooner]

Genesis 12:1-3
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

The word used here in Hebrew text is elohim (sic?) and it is plural not singular...

[poptart]

What's your point?

[Diogenes]

What's your point?

That the Trinity is forseen in Genesis, obviously.

Right?

[SunCoastSooner]

What's your point?

I was just stirring the pot... :twisted:

[battery chucka' one]

Genesis 12:1-3
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

The word used here in Hebrew text is elohim (sic?) and it is plural not singular...

The same word is used when God created man. 'let Us make him in Our image'.

[SunCoastSooner]

Genesis 12:1-3
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

The word used here in Hebrew text is elohim (sic?) and it is plural not singular...

The same word is used when God created man. 'let Us make him in Our image'.

I actually knew that but it had no bearing on the current conversation. The word is actually used numerous times in the early books of the OT.

[battery chucka' one]

The same word is used when God created man. 'let Us make him in Our image'.

I actually knew that but it had no bearing on the current conversation. The word is actually used numerous times in the early books of the OT.

If you were talking about the insinuation of the trinity with the use of a plural noun, then it most certainly has bearing. If you meant something else, then please let us know what that is. And yes, Elohim is used multiple times in the OT.

[SunCoastSooner]

The same word is used when God created man. 'let Us make him in Our image'.

I actually knew that but it had no bearing on the current conversation. The word is actually used numerous times in the early books of the OT.

If you were talking about the insinuation of the trinity with the use of a plural noun, then it most certainly has bearing. If you meant something else, then please let us know what that is. And yes, Elohim is used multiple times in the OT.

I meant something else... :twisted: